I have to agree with Dan Klein - "Open Borders" isn't a slogan that helps persuade the persuadable.
I *think* I'm in sync with you, Bryan, on policy. But "freedom" strikes virtually everyone as a good thing, while "openness" doesn't. "Free migration" would in fact be a better slogan.
Re selling the policy, unlike "‘free markets’, ‘free trade’, and ‘free enterprise’, migration triggers a (literally) instinctive tribal defense, which needs to be overcome by reason and argument. It's intrinsically a harder sell.
I think "free migration" would be an easier sell if advocates supported making it conditional on good behavior (crime, resort to public funds, etc. being grounds for removal).
Second best would be to at least admit unlimited numbers of highly qualified people - with STEM degrees, successful entrepreneurs. high IQs, those with a committed job that pays over $150k/year, etc.
Another reasonable compromise might be to let immigrants post a bond against good behavior - say $10,000 or so - redeemable when they become citizens or decide to emigrate. And the bond could be used to pay costs of deportation if necessary.
"I’m not absolutist; I don’t say “Let’s have open borders even if it’s a complete disaster.” Nor do I say, “I refuse to consider the slightest exception.” But yes, I think immigration restrictions are (a) a monstrous injustice and, (b) the most economically harmful government regulations on the books."
Good, now tell us how and where you draw the line, and what constitutes a "complete disaster"? Because that determines whether "open borders" is the right slogan or whether you really favor "open borders to the extent that they don't materially harm those living in the receiving nation." And these two standards may produce radically different policies on the ground because it is quite plausible that widespread immigration from certain nations would severely damage the liberty interests of citizens living in liberal democracies, as argued here: https://www.academia.edu/38936607/The_Liberal_Defense_of_Immigration_Control
Those arguments seem quite convincing in theory but in practice I've found that quite a few ppl respond to advocacy of open borders with the: but what about terrorists objection.
While I can't defend Dr. Klein's hostility to free immigration, I do like his "restore 'liberalism' " project. I can think of a few of wedges that can help it succeed over time:
1. The internet is internationalizing us, and "liberal" retains its original meaning literally everywhere on Earth except the U.S., Canada, and GB (but not Australia).
2. The *only* people who still refer to social-democrat style left wingers as "liberals" are conservatives. The left doesn't use that term any more, and conservatives are a smaller group to convince!
3. The terms "liberalization", "liberalize", "illiberal", etc. retain their original meanings, even in U.S. English.
In conversations, leading with #3 can allow 'liberal' and 'liberalism' to be slipped in w/o confusing the listener, and help further the goal over time.
Linguist/Theologican: a) The word for "messenger" in the (Greek) bible is "angelos".
b) "only a messenger" is how the Quran describes prophet Mohammad.
Lay-man: I commented on the post of Dan Klein's piece. Then slept over it. Came up with "Smart Borders"(R) or "smart immigration"(D - or: 'fair immigration'?).
These I would use as an US-politician. (As in "tax-credit" instead of "negative income tax" - which I consider the worst name for a great idea if you need to talk to voters). B.C. should of course avoid such opaque ambiguity.
I think Dr. Caplan is not a "messenger" at all. Messengers have an ability to put their argument into context and seek to sway minds within the conditions and constraints in which they live. As much as I enjoy reading these posts, I think Dr. Caplan is best described not as a "messenger" but as a polemicist.
This is another very good post. I think that morally, Open Borders is correct. But I do share some of the concerns that Peter Singer has raised, which Bryan mentioned briefly in his summary post of their discussion.
How far can we push before we get someone like Trump again?
2) But basically anyone can cross them illegally without too much trouble and sometimes we even pay for it. Probably we will give an amnesty every 20 years or so, and of course there is birthright citizenship even if your illegal.
3) Those migrants should try their best to settle in purple/red areas to one day vote for us, but especially they shouldn't move into white upper middle class liberal neighborhoods in any kind of numbers
The left can't support Open Borders because it would be politically suicidal, and anyway they don't really want a level of immigration that would destabilize their lives (and some probably genuinely believe it would be an all around disaster). Their preference would be for a level of immigration that causes a steady leftward drift in politics without inciting a backlash, as is the case on the border today (Texas and Florida Hispanics are rejecting mass immigration).
Open Borders, and quite frankly even the amount of immigration on the border today, is unpopular to the median voter. It's even unpopular for the median Hispanic voter on the border. It's unpopular because its a terrible idea and the median voter can see that.
Sometimes I do not see Klein as a promoter of liberalism. When I meet him once in Stockholm at a market-liberal think-tank called Timbro, he said that for right-wing liberals it would be better to vote for Trump GOP than for Libertarian Party of Dems, before the 2020 elections. Also, he has promoted that the far-right Sweden Democrats should be a part of the new right-wing government in Sweden, despite that SD has declared liberalism as its ideological enemy and want to abolish Sweden as a liberal society.
Thanks Bryan. My position is that movement, migration and mobility should be free, open, secure globally for all law abiding individuals. We do not choose our birth places so we should be able to choose our life places
Milton Friedman famously once said, “you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state” (1999). He was and he remains correct.
I have to agree with Dan Klein - "Open Borders" isn't a slogan that helps persuade the persuadable.
I *think* I'm in sync with you, Bryan, on policy. But "freedom" strikes virtually everyone as a good thing, while "openness" doesn't. "Free migration" would in fact be a better slogan.
Re selling the policy, unlike "‘free markets’, ‘free trade’, and ‘free enterprise’, migration triggers a (literally) instinctive tribal defense, which needs to be overcome by reason and argument. It's intrinsically a harder sell.
I think "free migration" would be an easier sell if advocates supported making it conditional on good behavior (crime, resort to public funds, etc. being grounds for removal).
Second best would be to at least admit unlimited numbers of highly qualified people - with STEM degrees, successful entrepreneurs. high IQs, those with a committed job that pays over $150k/year, etc.
Another reasonable compromise might be to let immigrants post a bond against good behavior - say $10,000 or so - redeemable when they become citizens or decide to emigrate. And the bond could be used to pay costs of deportation if necessary.
Correct. Open borders is a fine slogan, and the correct position!
Bryan says:
"I’m not absolutist; I don’t say “Let’s have open borders even if it’s a complete disaster.” Nor do I say, “I refuse to consider the slightest exception.” But yes, I think immigration restrictions are (a) a monstrous injustice and, (b) the most economically harmful government regulations on the books."
Good, now tell us how and where you draw the line, and what constitutes a "complete disaster"? Because that determines whether "open borders" is the right slogan or whether you really favor "open borders to the extent that they don't materially harm those living in the receiving nation." And these two standards may produce radically different policies on the ground because it is quite plausible that widespread immigration from certain nations would severely damage the liberty interests of citizens living in liberal democracies, as argued here: https://www.academia.edu/38936607/The_Liberal_Defense_of_Immigration_Control
Those arguments seem quite convincing in theory but in practice I've found that quite a few ppl respond to advocacy of open borders with the: but what about terrorists objection.
While I can't defend Dr. Klein's hostility to free immigration, I do like his "restore 'liberalism' " project. I can think of a few of wedges that can help it succeed over time:
1. The internet is internationalizing us, and "liberal" retains its original meaning literally everywhere on Earth except the U.S., Canada, and GB (but not Australia).
2. The *only* people who still refer to social-democrat style left wingers as "liberals" are conservatives. The left doesn't use that term any more, and conservatives are a smaller group to convince!
3. The terms "liberalization", "liberalize", "illiberal", etc. retain their original meanings, even in U.S. English.
In conversations, leading with #3 can allow 'liberal' and 'liberalism' to be slipped in w/o confusing the listener, and help further the goal over time.
Linguist/Theologican: a) The word for "messenger" in the (Greek) bible is "angelos".
b) "only a messenger" is how the Quran describes prophet Mohammad.
Lay-man: I commented on the post of Dan Klein's piece. Then slept over it. Came up with "Smart Borders"(R) or "smart immigration"(D - or: 'fair immigration'?).
These I would use as an US-politician. (As in "tax-credit" instead of "negative income tax" - which I consider the worst name for a great idea if you need to talk to voters). B.C. should of course avoid such opaque ambiguity.
I think Dr. Caplan is not a "messenger" at all. Messengers have an ability to put their argument into context and seek to sway minds within the conditions and constraints in which they live. As much as I enjoy reading these posts, I think Dr. Caplan is best described not as a "messenger" but as a polemicist.
This is another very good post. I think that morally, Open Borders is correct. But I do share some of the concerns that Peter Singer has raised, which Bryan mentioned briefly in his summary post of their discussion.
How far can we push before we get someone like Trump again?
The position of the left is that:
1) We have borders
2) But basically anyone can cross them illegally without too much trouble and sometimes we even pay for it. Probably we will give an amnesty every 20 years or so, and of course there is birthright citizenship even if your illegal.
3) Those migrants should try their best to settle in purple/red areas to one day vote for us, but especially they shouldn't move into white upper middle class liberal neighborhoods in any kind of numbers
The left can't support Open Borders because it would be politically suicidal, and anyway they don't really want a level of immigration that would destabilize their lives (and some probably genuinely believe it would be an all around disaster). Their preference would be for a level of immigration that causes a steady leftward drift in politics without inciting a backlash, as is the case on the border today (Texas and Florida Hispanics are rejecting mass immigration).
Open Borders, and quite frankly even the amount of immigration on the border today, is unpopular to the median voter. It's even unpopular for the median Hispanic voter on the border. It's unpopular because its a terrible idea and the median voter can see that.
Sometimes I do not see Klein as a promoter of liberalism. When I meet him once in Stockholm at a market-liberal think-tank called Timbro, he said that for right-wing liberals it would be better to vote for Trump GOP than for Libertarian Party of Dems, before the 2020 elections. Also, he has promoted that the far-right Sweden Democrats should be a part of the new right-wing government in Sweden, despite that SD has declared liberalism as its ideological enemy and want to abolish Sweden as a liberal society.
Thanks Bryan. My position is that movement, migration and mobility should be free, open, secure globally for all law abiding individuals. We do not choose our birth places so we should be able to choose our life places
https://www.opulens.se/global/free-movement-for-humans-is-not-only-about-the-economy/
(I think it's "offenste", oder?)
So is there a difference in your mind between "Open Borders" and "No Borders" (with respect to the migration of people)?